Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: titanic3 on January 30, 2012, 10:05:04 PM
-
Is the damage all random or is it just me? Half the time, if I land a tater on a plane's tail, it'll fall off. The other half, i'll hit it yet the guy only loses a rudder or an elevator. Same with the wing tips and engine block. They either fall of completely/explode or lose an aileron/get an oil hit. I don't know if it's bad luck or if it's the damage model, but I can't count the times I lost a kill or died because the other got away with taters hits. It's even more fun when they take a hit in the tail AND wing and only lose an elevator/aileron.
-
never seen a plane/ anything with 1 engine take 2 taters...i have had a few times had a p-51 take one 30mm us and german and flew away with nothing missing or smoking
-
I have film of a P51 taking 3 30mm in 3 separate bursts, taking different damage each time. First one was engine, forget the 2nd, and 3rd shot hit something in his tail and blew 1/2 of it off. I'll post it if you want.
It's rare, but it CAN happen.
-
if you hit a control surface it will pop off, if you hit the engine it will smoke and shut down. In theory a single engine plane can take 3 hits and glide to the deck.
-
I think there is a myth out there that a 30mm tater is a one shot one kill weapon, and although very powerful it certainly is not.
-
I have all kinds of films of taters hitting planes and doing next to nothing damage. A hit from a tater on the engine of a jug can stop it dead in its tracks. I have put two into the engine nacelle of a lanc and not even gotten an oil leak. My personal favorite was hitting the cockpit of a dora, actually seeing the round impact the instrument panel from the opponent, on film, and watch the guy fly away.
Not a one shot kill weapon for sure. I think it all boils down to timing, skynet, luck.
-
I think there is a myth out there that a 30mm tater is a one shot one kill weapon, and although very powerful it certainly is not.
It should be an all but a one-shot kill weapon. Perhaps not because of the impact of the round directly all of the time, but certainly on the next high-g maneuver that the receiver of the 30mm makes, especially if the shot landed on a critical airframe component such as a wing root. The airframe should be stressed and damaged enough that the affected parts should rip off if the pilot pulls any moves with high G.
Most fighters (note that I do not say bombers) should take heavy enough damage from a 30mm or two to render them unable to do anything but limp home, not being able to continue a protracted, high maneuvering dogfight, climb, dive, etc. without tearing something important off.
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/TaterAutoCad.jpg)
-
if you hit a control surface it will pop off, if you hit the engine it will smoke and shut down. In theory a single engine plane can take 3 hits and glide to the deck.
Yep, took one one into the engine and killed it. Still glide it back home since i was +25k.
-
I have absorbed a single tater in a jug and survived a couple of times, but it is pretty rare. Usually 1 tater = 1 trip to the tower.
-
It should be an all but a one-shot kill weapon. Perhaps not because of the impact of the round directly all of the time, but certainly on the next high-g maneuver that the receiver of the 30mm makes, especially if the shot landed on a critical airframe component such as a wing root. The airframe should be stressed and damaged enough that the affected parts should rip off if the pilot pulls any moves with high G.
Most fighters (note that I do not say bombers) should take heavy enough damage from a 30mm or two to render them unable to do anything but limp home, not being able to continue a protracted, high maneuvering dogfight, climb, dive, etc. without tearing something important off.
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/TaterAutoCad.jpg)
Right, what you just said was that most of the time a single round into a fighter destroys or cripples it. Which is exactly what we have in AH. But it is not a One hit 100% chance of a kill as many think it has to be, and then cry foul.
-
I think it's good with some degree of randomness. Accounts for those lucky few who made it back with what would normally be catastrophic damage.
(http://spitfiresite.com/uploaded_images/1941-d7.jpg)
-
Right, what you just said was that most of the time a single round into a fighter destroys or cripples it. Which is exactly what we have in AH. But it is not a One hit 100% chance of a kill as many think it has to be, and then cry foul.
No, certainly not 100%, but 90% of the time, a 30 mm hit should make most single engine fighters start thinking about something beyond continuing the fight.
-
I think it's good with some degree of randomness. Accounts for those lucky few who made it back with what would normally be catastrophic damage.
(http://spitfiresite.com/uploaded_images/1941-d7.jpg)
Even 7.9 bullets could do that. Hurricanes and wood and fabric tail sections...
I have a film of hitting a yak with 3 taters and the 3rd pass I killed it.
-
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/TaterAutoCad.jpg)
Autocad 2011 :drool: :(
-
There's definitely some randomness it seems, or such a level of precision that separates a fatal shot from a non fatal shot that essentially creates a random environment for the shooter. The better you aim, the more lethal you will be, regardless of "anomalies".
-
Autocad 2011 :drool: :(
Faster than my Solidwork for some things :devil
-
Faster than my Solidwork for some things :devil
Well im running on a free copy of 2007 so im not complaining just fantasizing lol
Gonna start using Inventor next year
-
It should be an all but a one-shot kill weapon. Perhaps not because of the impact of the round directly all of the time, but certainly on the next high-g maneuver that the receiver of the 30mm makes, especially if the shot landed on a critical airframe component such as a wing root. The airframe should be stressed and damaged enough that the affected parts should rip off if the pilot pulls any moves with high G.
Most fighters (note that I do not say bombers) should take heavy enough damage from a 30mm or two to render them unable to do anything but limp home, not being able to continue a protracted, high maneuvering dogfight, climb, dive, etc. without tearing something important off.
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/TaterAutoCad.jpg)
This that tater a 20 mm, 30mm, 37 mm or far fetch 50 or more mm?
-
Since the Mk108 rounds fired are 1 tracer in 3, is it possible the fuze is modeled to surface premature detonate and cavety delayed detonate as happened in the war? Add to this the damage requirements of the modeling for the various parts of each aircrft, maybe it now takes more than a single Mk108 some percentage of the time. You may notice it looks like the number of wide dispersion flyers seem to have been increased.
I'm amazed spin delayed self destruct fuzes are not modeled. I read an after action report of pilots lobbing Mk108 rounds at longer distance to try and take advatage of the self destruct fuze and airburst them near bombers. The self destruct fuze works by the slowing down of the round's spin which engages the striker after about 1000 meters. Woudn't want to go kiling your own civilians after missing the bombers dropping bombs on them.
Mini 88's...... ;)
-
I'm somewhat skeptical about pilots relying on self-destruct fuses to provide damage to nearby bombers as the actual principle why HE or rather MG was so efficient was the pressure effect, not shrapnel. I'd say that that kind of observation was probably just an indication of German pilots firing too far away, especially if they were firing MK108s, not MK103s, and that does not surprise me at all as it was quite common. That was probably part of why the hit percentage was deemed as low as 2% for interceptors.
It would be cool to have self destruct blasts, though. They have these modeled in WW2OL and they are kinda cool but you only hear them if you happen to be close enough when they go off. Just candy, but cool.
-C+
-
85 grams of HA41 (Hexogen Aluminium) going off next to a fuel leak at over 1000F might do some damage. The steel casing whizzing around might also. The Stielhandgranate 24 stick grenade had 170 grams of TNT. TNT was not as powerful or thermogenic as HA41 and TNT was the benchmark for explosives. The aluminium in HA41 creates the high temperatures with the blast. HA41 is 1.4-2 times as powerful as TNT based on composition.
The 3 cm Minengeschoss 108 with 85 grams of HA41 was equivalent to the Stielhandgranate 24 in blast capacity but in a container 1/2 the size. Wonder what the detonation would do 3 feet from the plane?
-
85 grams of HA41 (Hexogen Aluminium) going off next to a fuel leak at over 1000F might do some damage. The steel casing whizzing around might also. The Stielhandgranate 24 stick grenade had 170 grams of TNT. TNT was not as powerful or thermogenic as HA41 and TNT was the benchmark for explosives. The aluminium in HA41 creates the high temperatures with the blast. HA41 is 1.4-2 times as powerful as TNT based on composition.
The 3 cm Minengeschoss 108 with 85 grams of HA41 was equivalent to the Stielhandgranate 24 in blast capacity but in a container 1/2 the size. Wonder what the detonation would do 3 feet from the plane?
In RL once a projectile slows down to a certain speed, they will tumble and not 'fly' correctly, is this modeled in AH?
My understanding is that the huge numbers of bombers combined with interceptors often being flown by pilots with little experience probably resulted in people pulling the trigger from 1000 yrds out or greater, esp when you take into account that the most common attack was a frontal attack where the closing speeds could be above 600 mph (200ish bombers, 300-400ish fighters).
-
I don't find this tactic unbelievable. The Germans had "mini-flak" rounds in as small a caliber as 7.92mm for the defensive guns of their bombers. The reasoning was that even if the tiny puffy ack was mostly harmless it was scary and distracting to an attacking fighter pilot. The 210 mm rocket mortars they used on bomber formations were also designed to break up the defensive formations rather than just the off-chance direct hit. German fighter pilots were actually given more points towards decorations for making a bomber break formation than for the actual kill.
-
I think there is a myth out there that a 30mm tater is almost a one shot one kill weapon, and although very powerful it certainly is not.
Fixt. Can we help it if one word gets left out from time to time?
Also, to add, many many many times that you think you just got 1-shot by an enemy tater and sent to the tower because of one bullet, you really absorbed more than a 1-shot burst (although it is debatable if the first shot you recieved from that burst was enough). I would put my average at about 3-5 tater strikes per fighter kill when I do make the kill with a tater burst, and I try to be conservative with them and use very brief bursts.
-
Fixt. Can we help it if one word gets left out from time to time?
Also, to add, many many many times that you think you just got 1-shot by an enemy tater and sent to the tower because of one bullet, you really absorbed more than a 1-shot burst (although it is debatable if the first shot you recieved from that burst was enough). I would put my average at about 3-5 tater strikes per fighter kill when I do make the kill with a tater burst, and I try to be conservative with them and use very brief bursts.
I find that works the best for me, a quick squeeze and a couple taters = a dead fighter....just wish I could aim the suker :cry
-
I don't find this tactic unbelievable. The Germans had "mini-flak" rounds in as small a caliber as 7.92mm for the defensive guns of their bombers. The reasoning was that even if the tiny puffy ack was mostly harmless it was scary and distracting to an attacking fighter pilot. The 210 mm rocket mortars they used on bomber formations were also designed to break up the defensive formations rather than just the off-chance direct hit. German fighter pilots were actually given more points towards decorations for making a bomber break formation than for the actual kill.
Source, bitte?
-
Source, bitte?
x2
-
Another target which I found pretty damn tough to the tater. Dove on a formation of Arados, I was barely able to catch them so I was sitting d600 off taking my time but it's hard to aim at that range. 4 tater splashes spread across the entire plane's width. The lead plane lost both engines but still kept flying. I switched to the drones, blew one up with a lucky tater, went to the second drone, again, it took 4-5 taters and lost both engines. I put one more round in for a total of 5-6 taters, and his wing came off.
The whole time, I got sprayed by the 20mm and one golden bullet took out my engine. I went home with 2 kills and the Arado managed to land a few minutes after. Pretty damn tough for a small jet bomber.
-
Another target which I found pretty damn tough to the tater. Dove on a formation of Arados, I was barely able to catch them so I was sitting d600 off taking my time but it's hard to aim at that range. 4 tater splashes spread across the entire plane's width. The lead plane lost both engines but still kept flying. I switched to the drones, blew one up with a lucky tater, went to the second drone, again, it took 4-5 taters and lost both engines. I put one more round in for a total of 5-6 taters, and his wing came off.
The whole time, I got sprayed by the 20mm and one golden bullet took out my engine. I went home with 2 kills and the Arado managed to land a few minutes after. Pretty damn tough for a small jet bomber.
arado is very tough in this game almost b17 tough
-
The feature of rapid pressure build-up of such HE is that it effectively takes out the confined space where it explodes and it is possible that it is only a flap of control surface, which is fortunate for the target as it would take out a wing or fuselage just the same. It is also possible that it hits the engine and it will take it out, but I'd say it is not able to "explode" it. The effect is much more radical in a wing or fuselage and even more so if some fuel gets into "mixture".
I consider a real "flak" round to be a grenade which has a fuse that has and adjustable setting so that it can be made to burst near the target aircraft (this excludes 20mm rounds which were used in light flak cannons but had only non-adjustable fuses). I consider this observation of "flak rounds" to be merely an observation of normal 20mm and 30mm rounds going off in the vicinity of bombers and I'd say they saw these many many times. Even a single 190A8 firing from 1k out would produce hundreds of these small self-destruct blasts for tail gunner's enjoyment but they cannot be considered as "flak" IMO. Also a normal flak round relies very much on shrapnel effect since pressure effect simply does not work well unless it is in confined space and this also works as a distinction between rounds fired from ground against aircraft to rounds fired AtA where rounds are to hit the target and not just explode in the vicinity as in real "flak".
-C+
-
Source, bitte?
"JG26," by Donald Caldwell, gives an account of this. I don't have my copy here, will try to remember to get it. I'm not sure that the German's awarded more points for breaking a bomber out of formation than they did for shooting it down, but they did award points for both.
- oldman
-
There are many online sources available, just google "Luftwaffe scoring system" or similar.
For a four-engined bomber a German pilot could get a total of 3 points. 2 points for Herrausschuss (forcing a bomber to break formation) and a single point for Entgültige Vernichtung (final destruction). If a pilot shot down a bomber while it was still in formation he would be awarded all three points.
-
"JG26," by Donald Caldwell, gives an account of this. I don't have my copy here, will try to remember to get it. I'm not sure that the German's awarded more points for breaking a bomber out of formation than they did for shooting it down, but they did award points for both.
- oldman
I have that, too. I'll check about them getting more points for breaking formation.
There are many online sources available, just google "Luftwaffe scoring system" or similar.
For a four-engined bomber a German pilot could get a total of 3 points. 2 points for Herrausschuss (forcing a bomber to break formation) and a single point for Entgültige Vernichtung (final destruction). If a pilot shot down a bomber while it was still in formation he would be awarded all three points.
If you are trying to make a point, the burden of proof lies upon you if asked for it. I can imagine going into a courtroom as a prosecutor "Just Google it, Your Honor!"
:rofl
-
I wasn't aware that this was a courtroom, and you a judge.
It isn't, and you're not. No burden of proof lies on me.
I'm not going to waste any time looking up sources for a jerk on some internet forum. Find your own sources.
-
I wasn't aware that this was a courtroom, and you a judge.
It isn't, and you're not. No burden of proof lies on me.
I'm not going to waste any time looking up sources for a jerk on some internet forum. Find your own sources.
When making any claims, reports or otherwise, when trying to prove a point, there are usually sources cited at the end, such as a Bibliography. Wiki cites sources, also.
I made no claims of either situation, it was just an example. Regardless if it was a courtroom or not, it is up to the person making claims to prove their viewpoint with facts. It is considered proper form and a courtesy.
Neither was I being an "internet jerk", just in case you missed the laughing smiley. If I was being a jerk, you would be fully aware of the fact as I would be completely overt about it or even outright state that I was being a jerk.
Base name-calling, as in your example above, is being an "internet jerk". However, since you have chosen to use those tactics, you have revealed the true depth and scope of your intellect, as well as, the character of your person.
(psst: That was me being an "internet jerk")
Carry On :salute
-
I wasn't aware that this was a courtroom, and you a judge.
It isn't, and you're not. No burden of proof lies on me.
I'm not going to waste any time looking up sources for a jerk on some internet forum. Find your own sources.
The original claim that pilots were awarded more points for breaking up a formation than for shooting down a plane is, on its face, somewhat startling, and it shouldn't surprise you that people would like to see some support for it. VonMessa's response may have been colorful, but it was hardly rude enough to warrant this response. One of the ways we all gain new knowledge in these forums is by reading (or in some cases seeing) the evidence behind posters' postings.
- oldman
-
Maybe I was a bit harsh, but the information is readily available and what I consider common knowledge for anyone who has an interest for the Luftwaffe and defense of the Reich in particular. The system was only in effect against the allies on the western front facing daylight raids. On the eastern front they had a simpler system based on victories alone. In the west 3 points would get you an iron cross 1st class. 40 points would net you a nice shiny knights cross.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=luftwaffe+score+system
-
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Image1-1.jpg)
This point-decoration system was used only on the Western Front, because the Germans believed it was easier to shoot down Soviet fighters and bombers than to down Western-flown aircraft.
Source: http://rhorta.home.xs4all.nl/jgscor.htm (http://rhorta.home.xs4all.nl/jgscor.htm)
Sorry I took so long, I had to go grab lunch :aok
-
Sorry if I was a bit sore there VonMessa. I'm not having a particularly great day.
-
Sorry if I was a bit sore there VonMessa. I'm not having a particularly great day.
Apology accepted :aok
Have a better day. :x
-
These whizzing matches are only going to get better if the 410 with the dual MK103 in the nose is introduced. Same Minengeschoss round but, 360 M/sec faster. A 30mm that shoots like a MG151/20. I can see the arguments.
My tater won't kill anything.
Which tater?
The tater.
Which airplane?
The tater ariplane.
Which tater airplane?
The one that shoots taters.
Flat or lobs taters.
I don't know it shoots taters.
Are you insulting me?
No, my taters won't kill anything.
And another 10 years will loop on by...........